Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

The authors argue that spending is out of control. But their mistake is that they agree that the government is obligated to support poor seniors. Isn't that the source of the problem? Why are we considered cruel and unkind? All we are asking is for everyone to act responsibly and pay their own way. Is that cruel or is it wise?Isn't it a moral hazard to create a system where you are entitled to help because you have brain waves and you breathe?OK. I'm not a cruel person. I cry when I see someone suffering. But hasn't this gone far enough? And why is the Republican Party trying to make itself relevant again? They have a huge issue that will win in 2016: fiscal responsibility. All they have to do is argue against the concept of spreading costs across generations. All they have to do is argue against rosy assumptions like "when the next wave of prosperity kicks in we will pay down the deficit".Why is this so hard?

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

They should also work for states. As I remind my progressive friends all the time: The government is not the economy. Cutting government spending is not the same thing as cutting all spending. It's just cutting the coerced spending.

Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Yes, unfortunately liberal states have gotten used to making policy based on the largesse of the federal government and convoluted tax policies, which have created perverse incentives. Getting them to re-align their priorities according to free market forces will be like trying to weave these comments and replies back into order :)

Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Dear Mr. Boehner:Be strong and of good courage! Don't let the Hawaiian Hoax badger you into "compromising". Don't worry about being blamed. He will go down in history for what he truly is: the right man at the wrong time; a tax and spend liberal in the Age of Austerity.Now go enjoy your vacation. Work on your golf game, like he does. Then get ready to swing that ax! Cuz here comes another "manufactured crisis".

Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

The current spending as a percentage of GDP for 2012 is 23.58%. The United States has had 80 years where it did not increase the Federal Debt. Of those 80 years, 75 of them had spending as a percentage of GDP of 7.68% and below. The other five (1947, 1948, 1951, 1956 and 1957) ranged from 13.23% to 17.74%. The maximum tax rate for those five “outlier” years ranged from 82.13% to 91%.

So anytime spending has been more 17.74% of GDP, the Federal debt has always gone up. Even with 91% tax rates. The people who think we can “tax the rich” to get out of debt without epic spending cuts are wrong. In order to not add to the debt (even with 91% tax rates), we are still going to have to reduce spending by 24.7% (from 23.58% of GDP to 17.74%).

The current revenue as a percentage of GDP is 16.6%. If spending is reduced to reach the current revenue level it must go from 23.58% to 16.6% which is a 29.6% decrease in spending.

Of the aforementioned 80 years where the United States did not add to the debt, 75 of those years had revenues as a percentage of GDP from 1.2% to 8.4%. The five “outlier” years discussed earlier had ranges from 16.7% to 18.9%. . The United States has had 15 years where revenues were MORE than 18.9% a year. Interestingly enough, despite the revenue windfall, all 15 years the United States actually added to the debt.

In summary, the United States should keep the revenues as a percentage of GDP at less than 18.91% a year and reduce spending as a percentage of GDP to below 17.75% a year.

Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

At least 90% of the (3 million words in) the tax code was enacted to treat one group "more fairly" than another. Oh sure, there's always some reasonable excuse, but it comes down to politicians giving favorable treatment to one group to solicit votes or campaign contributions, or both.

When politicians talk about "tax reform", we tend to think of this as simplifying the tax code. But why would they do that? The tax code is a re-election tool.

What they really mean is updating it to purge the sacred cows that a long-gone representative put in - and replacing it with their own.

Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

So this brings us to the question of the day and perhaps why there is such a gap between Republicans and Democrats, and between capitalists and communists:Are we about what Obama calls "social Darwinism"? Is it OK to let some fall by the way side or do we have an obligation to provide for all? Do we really want to eliminate the "safety net"? Or how far do we reduce it? Lets face it, except for some fraudulent activity, people living off entitlements aren't exactly living "high on the hog".Republicans and, even more so, libertarians, seem to have frightened everyone into believing that we are cruel. How do we demonstrate that our philosophy isn't cruel?

Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

"Safety nets" have a number of problems, the most subtle being that they change behavior. Put simply, you are significantly more likely to fall off the wire when you know there's a safety net. This is just pure, indisputable human nature, with no way around it.

They also assume that, but for being put in place by government force, people who *do* fall off the wire will be "left behind" in some grandiose scheme of "Social Darwinism". This just isn't true. Private charities have been taking care of the needy long before somebody decided to start us down the road to government eventually taking over all of those functions.

People living on the dole may not be living "high on the hog" but they're certainly doing a great deal better than otherwise. A hundred fifty years ago, being poor *meant* something. It was a state of being to be avoided. Today, for most recipients of government largess, it's merely an inconvenience. You can't quite afford the "unlimited plan" on your cell phone -- but you DO have a cell phone. Maybe you're not getting HBO -- but you ARE getting Cable.

And to add insult to injury, there are numerous cases where the Well Off are *also* on the dole. John Stossel had an example where, being the wealthy man he was, bought a huge home on the East Coast -- in Storm Country. Inevitably, a Big Storm came and destroyed the house. Did his insurance cover the replacement? No, every insurance company knew the risk was too high, and WILL NOT cover structures in such locations. So guess who rebuilt his house? The taxpayer. Just in time for the NEXT storm to blow it down, which it did. (Stossel has since refused to rebuild there, but I'm sure someone else bought it, and rebuilt).

How do we convince anybody of this? Got me. I've been beating this drum for a long time, and the very BEST I've been able to accomplish is to convince people that they don't have enough facts to argue with me, but I still must be wrong anyway. Liberal Arts Education has pretty much succeeded in their indoctrination program.

Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

How's this for a solution. The cuts at $85B, but they are terribly random. How about the Red Team and Blue Team each have to come up with $200B in proposed cuts, then let the other side pick $42.5B from their list.

Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

"Much like Tea Party activists, who have caused exasperation among Republican leaders with demands to slash budgets almost indiscriminately, the abortion rebels feel there is little to lose by pushing for aggressive curbs and testing the courts. But other anti-abortion leaders say that strategy, exemplified by the Arkansas law, is likely to backfire, causing courts to endorse the current limits and wasting resources that could bring real, if smaller, gains."Today's New York Times.So now abortion opponents are being compared to Tea Party rebels?The nice thing about being a libertarian is that we can't be lumped together with conservatives, right wing evangelists or other lunatics. In a libertarian society women will have the freedom to do what they wish without having to feel that men are forcing them to breed.This is at least my vision of a free America. But I'm probably a more "progressive"' libertarian.

Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

"The president's aim is to reach beyond the congressional Republican leadership and build a coalition that will pass a sweeping budget deal that cuts the deficit, raises tax revenue, revises the tax code and shores up Social Security and Medicare,..." From today's Wall Street JournalIsn't this a hoot?! As if it is even possible to have a grand bargain? As if anything can be "shored up"? Haven't we passed the point where anyone can solve all of these problems and satisfy all parties?

Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

"Ay, there's the rub", as Shakespeare said. Isn't that the point? A "grand bargain" the Obama way? Paleeeeez. Spare me the rhetoric. Ain't gonna happen. You can spend 45 minutes at the 9th hole and another hour in the club house and you won't get a "grand bargain".I've gotta hand it to John Boehner. He is playing it cool and playing the right card. He said, "how much money do we have to steal from Americans in order to pay for all of this?"I like the guy. He is coming perilously close to our camp!

Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Unfortunately we are citizens of an empire that is unwilling to suffer any pain in order to get its house in order. Like other empires in history, we have bit off more than we can chew. We are unwilling to take the medicine that would restore us to sanity. It will all come crashing down.In my view, there will be a civil war, after which there will several countries or regions where there used to be the "United States". Or else there will be a gigantic wasteland like the Planet Of The Apes.

Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Naaaw. Not really Michael. A lot of hyperbole there. From your posts....there's a few things missing in your philsophic presuppositions. One is that there is any inherent kind of 'rightness" to market dictates. There isn't. The free market will always, at least for your future and mine, determine an entire class of hardworking people too poor to afford health care and probably too poor to afford to save for retirement. The vagaries of the market just are what they are...precious little rhyme or reason to many sectors. So what are you going to do? Take the benefit of the labor of an entire class of people, but not pay them enough to afford health care, and let them and/or their kids die in the gutter when they get sick, or too old to work?

Actually, from your posts, you probably would. Which is okay. You just don't get how anyone else's predicament is any of your problem. And you believe the illusion that "your earned money is your earned money" and you owe nothing to anyone.

But look, that's just hiding behind the dictates of the market, and shirking your responsibility for society overall. As a human being, that is contrary to your fundamental nature. You remain a social being, and as such, you can try all you want to pretend that human life is not sacred, and 'every man for himself' is an appropriate posture. But at the end of the day, I assert, you don't get to over-ride that impulse and directive with an intellectual sweep of the hand - or at least - not without serious consequence.

In the meantime, the disconnect between a guy like Romney and a guy like me, is this fundamental experiential awareness that human life is sacred, and human beings are social animals fundamentally, and we can't betray each other without at the same time betraying ourselves. I assert that as a biological, empirical, fact.

Make no mistake...that is not a justification for Marxism or any other bleeding heart styled policy. But its why we have safety nets, bad as they are in this country, whether the justifications have been well verbalized or not.